13 Feb 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed because the Applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law ground: the Director lawfully and reasonably assessed dependency and the criminal record against policy, engaged with representations, owed no duty to seek further evidence, and the application was also out of time.
18 Nov 2024
Extension of time was refused because, although the delay was modest (12 days), the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit: it sought effectively to reargue the merits of an immigration refusal that was substantially out of time and did not identify arguable public law errors sufficient to justify extending time.
15 Jul 2019
Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because the applicant's convictions are serious and there are no strong humanitarian grounds to depart from the established immigration policy, and the Court of Appeal authorities (Comilang; BI) render the leave application without merit.
25 Feb 2002
The court refused leave to amend insofar as the proposed amendments pleaded new grounds of bias, apparent bias and procedural mishap or impropriety because no prima facie case was made out and allowing them would distract from the core issues; it permitted that matters in the proposed amendments which are relevant to the original grounds (notably illogicality) may be canvassed at trial without a formal amendment; it refused cross-examination of the three deponents and ordered no discovery; it made a costs order nisi in favour of the respondent with a HKD 10,000 deduction from photocopying cos…
29 Sept 2000
Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because there is no arguable case: the applicant received the practical extension sought, no evidence was put forward showing the Director acted irrationally, perversely or with bias, and compassionate/family unity grounds do not suffice to found judicial review absent legal error.